allengeorge
Senior Member
Yeah. It's ^. It allows communities/planners to see how the building looks like in less appealing (and normal) conditions.
- Thread starter someMidTowner
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Cute exercise, maybe, but it wouldn't change anything.
ShonTron
Moderator
In the low late autumn light, this corner looks so depressing.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
They care enough for them to show the rendering in the current light though. Even if it's just a tool for marketing purposes.
...but you are right to a degree. That is, they'll still likely do what they do, because the bottom line is only what they really care about. It gets back to my point of grey being cheap.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Any ideas what could force a change away from the current situation where everything is grey/glass?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Coloured panels costing half as much as grey ones? Some imaginary situation where it's demonstrably clear that colourful buildings sell better or faster than grey ones?
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Are you asking if they do cost less? Or are you claiming they are in a question? (Citation would be needed for the latter, please.)
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Question and answer.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Then thank you for the clarification. /bows
Rascacielo
Senior Member
Today
Towered
Superstar
Amare
Senior Member
This is shaping up to be the most visually, soul-suckingly depressing neighborhood in the city. Street level is horrible everywhere around here, and the grey/black spandrel fest acts as the cherry on top.
reteequa
Active Member
I live on this block and it really isn't that bad. Once some retail and the indigenous community hub open in square gardens plus the ryerson building, filmores, and grand hotel it will be a pretty lively area which will hopefully in turn cause the city to take care of the homeless a little more.
I'm tired of people who don't live in the area and just see low quality photos from the ground comment on how an area is because my soul sure hasn't been sucked out of my body.
The views are great, amenities in my building are awesome once they are more accessible, a lot of people around, they parks and community spaces are about to be refreshed in the area, and its a good location thats close to everything.
Not every neighbourhood has to be a 5 star area, we need locations that are affordable if we actually want people to live here.
It's hard for a developer to put in a ton of money in such a terrible area.
I get the buildings aren't the most attractive out there but for the neighbourhood and just being cheaper student housing it really isn't that bad.
I know they could be better but is it really worth it because I sure as hell would rather more affordable housing that doesn't look the best over satisfying a bunch of randoms on the internet who cry too much.
Amare
Senior Member
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say: "It's hard for a developer to put in a ton of money in such a terrible area" while on the other you say: "I live on this block and it really isn't that bad". So which is it?
In my opinion, you're giving developers too much of a pass here. If the area/location is good, or even half-decent, a developer can easily afford to put in more money towards developing a high quality build, and in this particular area there is really no excuse not to do so asides from being just a cheap profit-maxing corporation that couldnt care less of the quality of their product. This area's proximity to various post-secondary institutions, rapid transit, retail, etc should be enough of a selling point to put money into any necessary funding into their builds. Regent Park which was once considered to be a "terrible area", was able to gain quality builds (for the most part) simply because the developers chose to invest in quality material selection. If it can happen in Regent Park, there is definitely no excuse for builds like this regardless of the location.
My original comment was from a pure aesthetic point of view. I've been around this neighbourhood very frequently and I am quite familiar with what's around there. The recent builds we've been seeing are not inspiring in the least and are visually dull and depressing (with the exception of the new Ryerson building), and I will stand by that.
alklay
Senior Member
"Cheap and ugly" vs "expensive and aesthetically pleasing" is a false choice. Good design and aesthetically pleasing material sets can be done on the cheap. It is simply a matter of laziness, lack of creativity and simple incompetency that the "cheap" buildings in this area (this condo, in particular) are ugly.